The Supreme Court of India has cancelled in a landmark decision the selection process carried out by the State of Punjab to select Assistant Professors and Librarians in the government degree colleges, which solidifies the principles which underscore the adventure of government in its employment practices. The judgment delivered through the direction of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K.Vinod Chandran gives a vivid picture of how essential it is that constitutional institutions such as the Public Service Commission are, and that any acts relating to the recruitment and selection of staff in the government must be carried out in accordance with the laid down rules and in such a way that the matter of appointment is transparent. This ruling acts as an important reminder by all state actors to be neutral, be competent and hold the trust of the people in choosing civil servants.
Case History and Facts
The controversy was caused by an order given in January 2021, when the State of Punjab first sought the services of Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) to appoint 931 Assistant Professors as well as 50 Librarians. PPSC started its preparations like roping in subject experts to come up with the syllabus of competitive exams. Afterwards, 160 new jobs at the level of an Assistant Professor and 17 Librarians were established. The Department of Higher Education within the State then tried to fill up these new positions by means of Departmental Selection Committee and not by means of the PPSC. The PPSC admitted that it could not react since no chairperson was available. The recruitment strategy shifted significantly in September 2021 with an adjustment of the state government. On October 9, 2021, a meeting presided over by the Secretary of Higher Education made the decision that all 1091 posts of Assistant Professor and 67 posts of Librarian would be filled under the written test only of the two state universities skipping over in entirely the PPSC and the formerly required guidelines of the University Grants Commission (UGC). This decision which was endorsed by the Chief Minister was conspicuously not taken to the Council of Ministers to be accepted as final. The advertisements were made on October 19, 2021, and the exams were hurried to conduct. This expedited and amended recruitment process was challenged by Writ petitions in the High Court. The educated Single Judge of the High Court struck down the whole recruitment procedure on ground of non-compliance of accepted procedures and arbitrary rule by the State. But this order was overturned by a larger Bench confirming the recruitment and thus the aggrieved candidates (appellants) went to the Supreme Court.
PSCs and Constitutional Provisions Concerning the role of the Public Service Commissions and constitutional provisions
One of the critical points in the case was sidling Punjab Public Service Commission. The appellants persistently made a point that the process of recruitment was not proper since selection of these posts was the stage that should be done by PPSC which the section 320 of the Constitution of India, read with the Punjab Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955, provides. As given in Article 320(3)(a), Constitution, it is clearly mentioned that all related matters concerning ways of recruiting one to civil services and civil posts, shall be consulted to the Public Service Commissions. The Supreme Court emphasized on the history of the case, as well as the intrinsic mission of Public Service Commissions and dates commencement of such to the Government of India Act, 1919 or even before that. The establishment of these commissions was the way to guarantee the values of objectivity, equity, and selection based on merit in public service so that it may not be exposed to political factors and individual preferences. The Court reiterated that all posts are not required to be filled through the Commission but there exists a stipulated legal way of dropping the posts out of the Commission jurisdiction which the State admittedly had not adhered in the present case. In March 2022 when the State retroactively amended the 1955 Regulations and this happened after the recruitment process was done and people had been appointed, this was held to be a post-facto exercise and was not valid. The Court reiterated that after regulations have been formulated using the proviso to Article 320(3), they have to be complied with in letter and spirit.
For any queries or to publish an article or post or advertisement on our platform, do call at +91 6377460764 or email us at contact@legalmaestros.com.
Compliance with UGC Regulations and standards
The fact that the State had abandoned the UGC Regulations of 2010 that was adopted in Punjab in July 30, 2013, was also another important feature of the case. These policies determined a detailed process of selection of Assistant Professors and Librarians such as examination of academic record, research performance, teaching abilities and an interview. Instead, the State chose to administer the simple written examination, consisting of the multiple-choice questions, leaving out some of critical parts such as the viva-voce, which, however, are fundamental to the examination of the applicants, in regards to teaching job in higher education. The State submitted that the UGC Regulations were only directory and not binding and this was perhaps due to the presence of the 2010 Regulations which had been replaced by 2018 UGC Regulations, not yet adopted by the State of Punjab. But the Supreme Court made it clear that the enactment of the 2010 UGC Regulations by Punjab was with the effect of incorporation and thus were in force in the State although they had been repealed by the UGC on the national level. This adoption by incorporation was demonstrated by the fact that the State clearly indicated in its memorandum that it seeks to improve the level of the Higher Education and by the fact that the, 2010 Regulations were referred to in reference by the State own memorandum. The Court decided that it was unacceptable to do away with a tried and tested method of selection that had been adopted uniformly by doing away with a simple objective test that was arbitrary and compromised the quality of selection.
The findings and conclusion of the Court
The Supreme Court eventually established several inadequacies in the recruitment procedure within the State. The Court reiterated that government activities should be just and reasonable with foundations on principles that are known and free of surprise, favor, and nepotism. The sudden flip-flop of the policy especially with a change of government and the speed in which the recruitment process was carried out without following the norms and consulting the Public Service Commission was considered arbitrarily. The retrospective rewriting of regulations in order to bring legitimacy to a faulty process also brought out a light on the anomalies. The Court has said that the law is to be done in the prescribed manner and when the law lays down a certain manner of doing an action then it has to be done in such a manner only. Ordering to quash the Division Bench order, the Supreme Court granted to nullify whole exercise of recruitment of Assistant Professors and Librarians. The Court had also instructed the State of Punjab to jumpstart a fresh recruitment process as per 2018 UGC Regulations which is currently implemented in the State. Although the Court recognized that scrapping of the recruitment may lead to suffering of those who were already selected, due to the gross illegality involved, the Court placed great emphasis on the fact that this could not and must not be overlooked particularly as the issue against the recruitment was initiated during its subsistence. The judgment is thus a powerful concept with regard to the rule of the law, with transparency, reasonable and merit in public employment.
